Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Iraq snapshot

This afternoon in Florida, US President Barack Obama declared, "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not
have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as
they fight for their own country against these terrorists."

Barack was attempting to push back against remarks Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, made yesterday when he and Secretary
of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. Dempsey made comments such at this:

Gen Martin Dempsey: At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a
mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military
advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for
enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions.
To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should
accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will
recommend that to the President.

In response to that and other remarks yesterday, Barack declared today, "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists."

Gen Martin Dempsey: First
of all, I think everyone should be aware when we talk about "combat
forces," that's all we grow. When we bring a young man or woman in the
military, they come in to be a combat soldier or a combat Marine or a
combat -- We don't bring them in to be anything else other than combat
capable. But that's different than how we use them. And in the case of
our contributions in Iraq right now, the airmen, as the Chair -- as the
Ranking Member mentioned, are very much in a combat role.

That is a combat role.

And it sounded like one in Barack's speech today when Barack stated, "So, last month, I gave the order for our military to begin taking
targeted action against ISIL. And since then, our brave pilot and crews
-- with your help -- have conducted more than 160 airstrikes against
these terrorists. Because of your efforts, we’ve been able to protect
our personnel and our facilities, and kill ISIL fighters, and given
space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. They’ve
helped our partners on the ground break ISIL sieges, helped rescue
civilians cornered on a mountain, helped save the lives of thousands of
innocent men, women and children."

The
general’s statement lays bare the challenge the president will face in
selling an expanded military campaign to a war-weary American public.
Mr. Obama, seeking to allay fears of another Iraq war, has promised that
American ground troops will not be involved in fighting the Islamic
State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. In a sign of the administration’s
mixed message, the president pointedly did not call it a war, while his
advisers later did.

But
the realities of a prolonged campaign, General Dempsey said, could make
such a hands-off approach untenable, particularly if the battle against
the militants moves into densely populated cities where airstrikes are
less effective and the chances of civilian casualties are much higher.
His candid testimony, hours before a divided House of Representatives
began debating whether to approve Mr. Obama’s request for authority to
arm the Syrian rebels, drew expressions of concern from antiwar groups
and could further complicate the political dynamic for the president.

The U.S. already has hundreds of advisors on the ground in Iraq.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told the
Senate panel he cannot rule out combat troops returning to Iraq, albeit
in a limited role."If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should
accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific (militant) targets, I
will recommend that to the president," Dempsey said.Such actions, he added, would be considered "close combat advising."President Barack Obama has maintained U.S. combat troops would not
be returning to the country. U.S. ground troops left the country in
2011 after nine years."At this point, (the president's) stated policy is we will not
have US ground forces in direct combat," Dempsey said. "But he has told
me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis."

Barack's push back today was especially surprising since he was aware of what Dempsey was going to say and knew of the opening remarks. Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak (CNN) note the White House was briefed on Dempsey's opening claim:

Gen Martin Dempsey: At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a
mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military
advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for
enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions.
To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should
accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will
recommend that to the President.

Briefed ahead of time. Elaine noted it at her site,
we noted it in the snapshot, these were prepared remarks, submitted in
writing before the hearing began. Dempsey read from the written
statement word for word. These prepared remarks went around the
administration -- including to the White House -- before they were
allowed to be submitted to Congress.

Dempsey's testimony addressed a genuine military and diplomatic
contingency. His honest answer, however, also serves as a political
hedge. "Ineffective" is an iffy term and gives the Obama administration
rhetorical space to deploy Army and Marine ground forces to Iraq and
Syria after the November elections. At that point, ticking off
Democratic peaceniks won’t distract from his golf game.

Defeating the extremists requires a strategy that emphasizes
diplomacy, intelligence and economics, said Jon B. Alterman, director of
the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.Those tools aren’t as easy to see in the short term, said
Alterman, but “they present the only path to victory: crippling the
organization’s networks, denying the group safe haven and undermining
the conditions that make it attractive to potential recruits.”“While
the Obama strategy is more than merely a military strategy, it appears
militarily focused,” Alterman wrote in an email Wednesday. “The
president’s speech on Iraq and Syria focused on military instruments,
and used the language of the military, twice promising to 'degrade and
destroy' the Islamic State. Perhaps the president was seeking to
capitalize on the urgency of this month’s murders, and only military
instruments seemed urgent enough.”

Meanwhile the leader of Iraq had a few comments to make and did so in an exclusive interview he granted to the Associated Press. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declared "out of the question" foreign troops being sent into Iraq. He also insisted that the world leaders needed to address the Islamic State in Syria.

Monday, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr objected to the outside 'interest' in Iraq's affairs. National Iraqi News Agency reported:Sadr said in a statement carried his signature and stamp today, " The
/ Black House / decided to launch attacks on Iraqi territory and this
American decision perhaps came after its remorse to its fake withdraw."
He added: " if you came back again we will back."
Sadr added, "the government should not get help from the occupier
whatever, even under the pretext of (the Islamic State), which is not
exist except in the imagination, but is a creature of Americans."

Sadr's statement came as All Iraq News reported John Kerry was boasting in Paris that many countries are offering "to send troops into Iraq." While Sadr is now said to have left Iraq (for Lebanon), Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.

I'm really not in the mood to go into it.

I wouldn't be noting it at all but John Kerry's being attacked. Undeservedly.

The Secretary of State declared at the hearing:

As I came in here, obviously, we had some folks who spoke out, and I
would start by saying that I understand dissent; I’ve lived it. That’s
how I first testified in front of this country in 1971. And I spent two
years protesting a policy, so I respect the right of Code Pink to
protest and to use that right.But you know what? I also know something about Code Pink. Code Pink
was started by a woman and women who were opposed to war but who also
thought that the government’s job was to take care of people and to give
them healthcare and education and good jobs. And if that’s what you
believe in – and I believe it is – then you ought to care about fighting
ISIL, because ISIL is killing and raping and mutilating women, and they
believe women shouldn’t have an education. They sell off girls to be
sex slaves to jihadists. There is no negotiation with ISIL; there is
nothing to negotiate. And they’re not offering anyone health care of any
kind. They’re not offering education of any kind, for a whole
philosophy or idea or cult, whatever you want to call it, that frankly
comes out of the Stone Age. They’re cold-blooded killers marauding
across the Middle East making a mockery of a peaceful religion.

And that’s precisely why we are building a coalition to try to stop
them from denying the women and the girls and the people of Iraq the
very future that they yearn for. And frankly, Code Pink and a lot of
other people need to stop to think about how you stop them and deal with
that.

Now you can disagree -- and I certainly do -- with his assembly of facts, factoids and fictions in the above.

And if that's what was focused on, fine and dandy.

But so many little worthless worms want to whine about 'poor' CodeStink.

Kerry's remarks towards CodeStink are fine.

There's nothing wrong with them.

He's noting their right to speak out in a democracy.

I see that as a good thing.

I'm not offended by his remarks towards CodeStink.

Those trying to gin up outrage are pretty much worthless when it comes to thought or analysis.

Senator Robert Menendez is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Rather than focus more on the hearing today, let's close with this from Senator Menendez's office:

Menendez Commends Senate Passage of Autism Bill

July 31, 2014

WASHINGTON,
DC – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today hailed the Senate's
passage of the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education
and Support (Autism CARES) Act, which is the identical companion to Menendez’s Senate bill, S. 2449. The
unanimous Senate passage was the final Congressional step needed to get
the bill to the President’s desk to be signed into law.“The
Senate’s action today ensures these vital autism programs are
reauthorized and continue providing research, services and supports
individuals with autism and their families have come to rely on,” said
Sen. Menendez. “The Autism CARES Act is a model of bipartisan, bicameral
cooperation – and I am proud I was able to work on it and look forward
to seeing the President sign this critical legislation into law.”

According to a recent report by the CDC,
autism rates climbed nearly 30% between 2008 and 2010, to 1 in 68
children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, from 1 in 88 children. In New Jersey, that prevalence is 1 in 45 children. Senator
Menendez is the leading advocate in Congress for individuals with
autism and their families, having secured the passage of the 2011
reauthorization of the Combating Autism Act. Additionally, he authored
the Assistance in Gaining Experience, Independence and Navigation (AGE-IN) Act
to address the needs of youth and young adults as they transition out
of school-based support to independent adulthood. Several key policies
from this legislation are incorporated in the Autism CARES Act.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.